This post was originally published on this site.
Subscribe to LA Public Press to get stories like this in your inbox every week.
If you wanted to see the first mayoral debate of the election season, you had to be there in person. Technical issues thwarted online viewers from tuning into a planned livestream.
But the more than 100 Los Angeles residents who gathered at the Beaudry Theatre in Downtown LA got to see a handful of mayoral candidates work to win voters over with their policy agendas on transportation, housing, affordability, and infrastructure.
Questions lobbed at the candidates dug into the nitty-gritty of city hall governance and how each person would tackle the quality-of-life concerns plaguing people in LA during the city’s fiscal crisis.
Here are five key takeaways from the debate, co-moderated by the transportation and climate justice organization, Streets For All, and housing advocacy nonprofit, Housing Action Coalition. The full debate is now available on YouTube.
1. Karen Bass and Spencer Pratt were not at the debate
Notably missing from the debate was incumbent and front-runner Mayor Karen Bass. The latest polling from the Los Angeles Times shows she is favored by 25% of voters. But the same polling also shows that more than 50% of all voters view her unfavorably, leaving the race open for another candidate to potentially overcome her lead.
Homelessness has been a driving focus of Bass’ first term, while other basic city services have languished. To the frustration of locals, the city quietly stopped repaving roads this year, leaving potholes unfilled and crosswalks unpainted. Candidates Nithya Raman, Rae Huang, and Adam Miller each took a turn criticizing Bass’ Inside Safe initiative, calling it expensive and ineffective at providing permanent housing to people living on the streets.
Spencer Pratt, a conservative who once appeared on reality TV, is third in the running at 14%, according to the polling, but he was also not present at the debate.
2. LA Mayoral Candidates committed to building more affordable housing, but differed on the approach
Candidates acknowledged that LA is becoming increasingly unaffordable. They all said they want to do something about it, but they differed on potential solutions.
Take for example Measure ULA, LA’s “mansion tax,” which applies to the sale of properties of $5.3 million or more. The tax revenue goes into a city fund to build more affordable housing. Huang said the law needs to be preserved as is, while Raman advocated for revisions to exempt new multi-family housing. Miller called it a poorly written law that is disastrous for housing developers.
There were also disagreements over SB 79, a new state law that is set to go into effect this summer to allow taller buildings near train stations and rapid bus lines by overriding local zoning rules.
Raman said the law and its goals are important but she said she has concerns about it increasing gentrification and fire risks. Miller said the state law is LA’s “punishment” for not delivering on affordable housing; he said the city, not the state, should decide where to upzone development. Huang said she supports the state law but wants to reserve some housing for locals to ensure that existing residents would not be displaced.
3. Rae Huang doubled down on her progressive agenda while stumbling on key questions
Huang, a pastor and progressive organizer, continued to drill down on her commitments to overhaul city hall by establishing a public bank, making buses fast and free, and building social housing while taxing the rich. But she stumbled on some key questions about transportation infrastructure and housing.
A moderator had to explain to Huang how red light cameras take pictures of speeding drivers, and Huang seemed stumped when asked about how she would prevent bad actors from filing appeals against approved development projects. At one point, she miscounted the number of traffic-related deaths (she said 300 people die a day, when it’s per year). The flubs and her delivery, at times coming across as preachy and hurried, emphasized her inexperience on the debate stage. But her passion shone when she spoke about wanting to meet the needs of forgotten Angelenos. She didn’t shy away from landing punches on her progressive opponent Raman in her closing statements as she leaned into her appeal as a fresh face in city government.
“What we’ve been seeing year after year is reformers coming into City Hall, taking a bad system, sometimes making it a little bit better, but at least right now, it’s a whole lot worse,” Huang said.
“I don’t want to rehash the same bad system over and over again. That is exactly why I am running for mayor of Los Angeles. It is time for real systems change.”
Huang is the leftist candidate on the ballot and is fourth in the race, trailing Pratt at 8%, according to the LA Times.
4. Nithya Raman showed off her urban planning background while defending critiques of her record in office
Raman, a Harvard and MIT graduate with a degree in urban planning, showed off her pragmatic know-how citing her record as a six-year progressive City Councilmember for the fourth district. She referenced building the first bike lanes in her district and spearheading the RAISE LA fund to construct more shade at bus stops. The LA Times has her polling in second place at 17%.
Throughout the night, Raman defended herself against critiques that she was a part of the very political establishment she seeks to upend — one example being when Huang criticized Raman for siding with developers in an effort to reform Measure ULA to exempt multi-family housing construction from the tax.
Raman’s last minute campaign announcement shook up LA’s political establishment, and her campaign goals are still not fleshed out publicly. But like Huang, Raman made clear she was fed up with the inability of LA to address basic quality of life issues, like broken streetlights and pedestrian safety.
“To have real progress right now, you need more than just values. You need more than just ideas. You need to be able to understand how City Hall works and to understand exactly what are the barriers that are standing in the way of common sense changes that can actually get us to real solutions for the affordability crisis and for the safety crisis on our streets,” Raman said.
5. Adam Miller advertised himself as Mr. Fix It, but at times felt removed from the issues he seeks to address
Entrepreneur and nonprofit executive Adam Miller endeavored to establish himself as the candidate best equipped to manage the city. Miller, who made a fortune developing HR software, turned toward philanthropic efforts through his organization Better Angels, which addresses homelessness in LA. Miller used business jargon to describe how he would save the city from financial ruin through “operational efficiency” and a results-driven approach to the job.
Throughout the night, Miller’s policy ideas didn’t always land well with an audience of pro-bike and public transit riders. The audience laughed after he suggested 3-mile commutes were walkable for Angelenos. Miller, according to the LA Times, is polling last among the top candidates at 6%. He tried to distinguish himself from his competitors as someone who can execute a plan. Miller detailed his resume establishing nonprofits that meet service gaps for unemployed youth and retired veterans in LA.
“For the last 25 years, I have not been a politician, I have not been an activist, I’ve been a leader,” Miller said. “We agree that the city is broken. The question is, who can best fix it? I believe we need somebody that’s a builder, somebody that understands how to operate and how to scale and how to manage budgets. And that’s what I’ve done my whole life.”
